BRANCH MANAGER Vs. S.BHAGYARAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal prefers from the order passed by CDRF, Idukki in the file of 194/2002 dated nil. The appellants are the opposite parties in the OP. The brief of the case is that the complainant had availed a vehicle loan from the opposite parties to the tune of 2,14,000 for purchasing a jeep intended for delivery of food items. The complainant remitted Rs.47,920 towards the loan. In the mean time without any notice or information the opposite parties seized the vehicle by force. Suspecting that the vehicle was stolen by somebody the complainant had reported the matter to the police for enquiry and search in Kerala and Tamil Nadu. It was revealed later that the vehicle was seized by opposite parties. Due to illegal seizure of the vehicle, the supply of bread etc was disturbed and the complainant had suffered considerable loss. Immediately on getting information regarding the seizure on 25.5.02 the complainant paid the entire amount claimed by the opposite parties, to the tune of Rs.2,53,544 and released the vehicle on 29.5.02. Violating the directives of REI, the opposite parties collected excessive interest and debited Rs.7,000 towards seizure charges. Alleging that the act of the opposite parties amount to deficiency in service, the complainant has filed for compensation of Rs. 1,25,000. The opposite parties appeared and filed their version and then contended that the complainant had availed a loan of Rs.2,14,000 on 9.11.2000 for the purchase of Mahindra Commander Jeep on agreement to repay the amount with 16.5% interest per annum. But he committed default in payment of the instalments from 9.12.2000 onwards. The opposite parties repeatedly request to regularize the account on payment of monthly instalments, on which tile complainant did not act upon. Notice was served on 8.5.2002 intimating the complainant to remit the defaulted amount of Rs.51,620 30.4.2002 before 18.5.2002. He was intimated that the vehicle would be seized without further notice if he fails to pay the defaulted amount before 18.5.2002. The bank received information that the complainant was trying to dispose off the vehicle to 3rd parties after the receipt of the notice dated 8.5.02 and immediate action was taken to safeguard the interest of the bank and the vehicle was seized. The fact of seizure was intimated to the SI of police, Munnar on 23.5.02. The complainant got information of the seizure and he contacted the bank on 23.5.02 at 11 a.m. and collected details for closure of the account. There was no deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties, and they have acted only under their authority to safeguard the interest of the payment. The Forum below raised only two issues: (1) Whether there was any deficiency in service from the part of the opposite parties, (2) other reliefs and costs. From the part of the complainant PW1 examined and Ext.P1 to P4 were marked; other side DW l and DW2 were marked as documentary evidence.

(2.) The Forum below answered the points that the seizure of the vehicle was illegal and it was deficiency in service. Forum below directed the opposite parties to pay to the complainant Rs.35,000 only as compensation along with .Rs.2,000 as costs of this proceedings and also Rs.7,000 collected by way of seizure charges from the complainant (Total Rs.44,000) within 15 days failing which the entire amount shall carry 12% interest from the date of default. This appeal prefers this findings.

(3.) Heard both sides. For the respondent/complainant the authorized representative is present. The counsel for the appellant vehemently argued on the grounds of appeal that there was no other alternative to realize the dues from the part of the complainant. He was a chronic defaulter. The appellant/opposite party moved for the seizure of the vehicle and the appellant got the information that the complainant have taken all the steps to disburse the vehicle to third parties, even though the vehicle was hypothecated to the appellants. The counsel who appeared for the appellants submitted that prior notice was issued to the complainant, before the alleged seizure of the vehicle. The authorized representative for the respondent/complainant submitted that he repaid almost every dues of the bank and the bank deliberately harassed the complainant by seizure the vehicle. The appellant bank and the respondent shop are functioning in the same building. He submitted that due to the seizure of the vehicle by the appellant, the complainant suffered huge loss in his business and in his other transactions. This Commission perused the entire documents available for the case and heard both sides. It is interesting to note that tile letter issued to the complainant by the appellant before the seizure of the vehicle is false and fabricated documents. There is no evidence to support the claim that the notice was issued to the complainant before the seizure of the vehicle. It is also seen that the complainant was having dues towards the loan amount to the appellant bank. The act of the bank is illegal and against the provisions of the law. He has no right to take law and order in his hands. It is admitted by the appellant that this vehicle was hypothecated to them and endorsed this fact in the RC book of the vehicle. In this circumstance the appellant have the right to proceed only as per law. It is the duty of the Bank to give a reasonable time to the complainant before the seizure of the vehicle. It is contended that the appellant is a reputed banking institution which has directly committed criminal offence. The Honble High Court of Kerala and the Apex Court of India, has given continuous warning against the illegal seizure of the vehicles. The authorized representative for the respondent/complainant submitted that they suffered huge loss due to the seizure of their vehicle illegally by the appellant. This stand is no way legally sustainable. It is the duty of the complainant to ˜prove that such a loss due to the illegal seizure of their vehicle by the appellant. Averments of the complaint it is seen that the loss sustained in the business of the complainant is due to the insufficient fund and not by the seizure of the vehicle. This Commission is not seeing any reason to interfere in the finding of the Forum below. The finding of the Forum below is in accordance with the law and evidence. We confirmed the order passed by the Forum below with following modifications. The opposite parties are directed to pay to the complainant Rs.25,000 as compensation along with 500 Rupees as cost of this proceedings and also to return Rs.7,000 illegally and irregularly collected by way of seizure charge from the complaint within 15 days failing which the entire amount shall carry 15% interest from the date of default. The above order of the Forum is confirmed accordingly. The appeal is allowed in part. The points are answered accordingly. Both parties are directed to suffer their own respective costs.